Franklin House

“The assessment included an unannounced visit to the service on 1 July 2025.”

“ ”

“The last rating for this service was good (published 5 November 2020). This assessment was carried out because of the length of time since our last assessment. The rating has remained good.”

“ ”

“Some of the records relating to people’s medicines needed to be improved to ensure staff had sufficient guidance to administer these safely. For example, staff had created records to explain when PRN (as required) medicines needed to be administered. However, these were not detailed enough. The provider took action and sent us evidence of improvements to these after our visit.”

“ ”

“Some risk assessments and management plans were not detailed enough. These included risks relating to medicines and people’s health conditions. We discussed this with the registered manager, and they started to make the required improvements. Staff knew people well and understood the risks they were exposed to.”

“ ”

“Accidents, incidents and complaints were investigated. Staff learnt from these. There were suitable systems to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. People lived in a safe, clean and well-maintained environment. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines as prescribed.”

“ ”

“Staff assessed people’s needs and choices. Staff received a wide range of training and understood about best practice. Staff teams and external professionals worked together to meet people’s needs. People were supported to stay healthy and to have enough to eat and drink. People consented to their care and treatment.”

“ ”

“Staff treated people with kindness. People’s individual needs were respected. People were able to take part in a range of different activities. Staff were well treated and supported.”

“ ”

“People and their relatives had information about the service and their care. People were asked for their views and knew how to make a complaint. People’s human rights were respected. People received personalised, good quality end of life care.”

“ ”

“The provider had effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service. There was a positive culture where people, relatives and staff felt happy and explained they would recommend the home. The registered manager and other senior staff were visible, inclusive and offered good support. Staff worked with external partners to meet people’s needs and share learning.”

“ ”